More importantly, you've come up with a strategy that cannot be beaten by any other strategy. No, it will not make the most money against other players if they have significant leaks in their games, but, at the same time, there is no possibility of someone else beating you in the long run.

This thread might have the most fail of any on 2+2.

You implied that Nash equilibrium equates to the game being 'solved'. Othello is nearly 'solved'. Poker is not.

NE does equate to game being solved imo. There is no point in playing if unbeatable bots are going to overrun the games. They may not be able to have as big of a winrate as you againts the fish, but they would still kill the games.

It does equate to the game being solved. I think we're using different definitions of the word.

Its solved once ESS is defined - with the other variables mentioned.

The equations for the solution are not out yet.

Nash Equilibrium <> solved, it needs enhancement.

This thread really sucks.

I'm using the standard definition used by students of game theory. Read the link. It equates Nash equilibrium to 'perfect play'.

Love it, when someone talks about the long run.
Can we live long enough?
Seems to me the discussions about theory, not reality.

Poker is not listed as solved because poker isn't solved. However, it is, in theory, solvable.

Of course the discussion is about theory, since NLHE is not solved, and is unlikely to be solved within our lifetimes.

Dice isn't solved. A student can easily find the Nash equilibrium for that game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game

.

Poker and any other game which requires the roll of the dice or turn of the cards can never be solved.

Not trying to be a dick, but I'm not sure there's much more to say at this point other than you're wrong.

JFC this thread sucks.

From the same article:

"Perfect play can be generalized to non-perfect information games, as the strategy that would guarantee the highest minimal expected outcome regardless of the strategy of the opponent."

Unless of course, you get the solution first, then program the computer. (Kinda obvious, ldo - but whom said the solution would be found by running said simulations though computer?)

You're not a dick. You're just uninformed. Games have been studied for years. You don't get to choose the definition of solved.

Using your definition of solved:

And additionally, from the page you link:

So if we discover an unexploitable strategy, i.e. perfect play, then we have a game whose "outcome can be correctly predicted from any position when each side plays optimally." That outcome, of course, is a draw (in a no rake game) when both players employ this strategy. Otherwise, it's a win for the player using the NE strategy and a loss for a player using any strategy other than NE.

I've read through most of this, didn't understand everything but I get the idea (thank you guy with the AKQ deck example) it's solvable which means it will be solved. Does that mean when it happens, online poker will inevitably die out when a large enough number of people start using bots that have solved it?

Which brings me to this...if HULHE has been solved and bots exist that beat the top pros today, why is it still available to play online, aren't people using those bots already? As someone pointed out, it's an impossible to prove thing.

NLHE is solved because ******ed ****-ups like durrr bet 20,000 preflop with 5 9 off. It shows that skill level has come full circle and there is no longer a way to "beat" the game.

bump bump bump it up

to what extent poker can be solved? must it be <10bb?

Limit holdem has been about solved but the bets there are insignificant compared to the size of the pot. Hu nlh is strong it seems and i think there is enough room for nitting, meaning ring games might do okay also.

The real poker is still needed or one is playing it much wrong, and that is even more needed in tournaments where one plays with observations and instincts even more as there is less room for statistical and technical play, almost a different form, not just a different format.

Using a pot odds calculator and the related range would improve ones results but real poker is still what one needs to play much, especially in tournaments, that i though mostly gave up after calculating i need 1 in 1k luck to score well once per two years as ev.

The bots could break even with perfect gto, but it is hard to believe as when the opponent nits, one needs to get enough free money to cover those, and in tournaments there is more or less no long run.

I do pretty well with a gto type in cash 6 max but adjusting scores still better. In tournaments i dont use much gto but more like brunson calling because of nit, that is an another reason i just stopped playing tournaments, being more comfortable in action and gto theoretical cash games with real stacks and tracking the opponent and playing up to hard, though i experienced tournaments to be more intense, though not less energy taking. The other taking more instinct attention, and survival technique and factors, while the cash takes more gto attention.

My experience says the cash gto does not work in tournaments, the math being different, and losing a little from ones stack is the beginning of the end, and defending with cash gto goes busto too soon and has no chance.

Cash games can be solved to break even plus maybe some for accuracy, but it hasnt been proven no matter how much one belives in nash and kelly etc. To be it is just a pretty rigid middle way that if used perfectly, likely breaks even, but the tournaments gtois different and orobably half of what we think about correct tournament play isnotknown or not right.

I understand now perfectly why some cash suckers are top tournament players, and it is not because of math and gto, but because of a different line, that i got to see when i played tournaments. Theclosest to cash was 2 and 3 handed poker played in exploitive style from most parts, the math differing on stack size and survival point.

One can adjust a bot to play, using a correct gto as bases. Plays more like a human then, just not with instincs or even experience, but maybe with some more accuracy.

while this is a ridiculous necro, the answer isn't can it be solved, it's whether it can be solved in a reasonable amount of time

just curious, if poker hasn't been solved, then bots may not work profitably, so then why are bots so hated?